Re: Can Trump Really Win the Presidency?
I find it very unlikely simply due to the history of the Republican Party. Once it becomes a two-man race, Trump is not a conservative while seeking the nomination of the politically active most hard-right conservatives in the country (the hard edges dominate the nomination process in both parties - which is why I don't consider Bernie beating Hillary to be nearly as unlikely as a lot of folks).
Furthermore, if Trump does anything less than win in Iowa - a state of organization and one-on-one campaigning - I think he's done anyway. And here is where Cruz has a major advantage because unlike Trump, he's actually run in a state race before.
I think it's positive that Trump has caused a freakout in the GOP because it forces candidates to have to listen to the public at large. Trump is feeding into that strain of populism that has produced temporary surge candidates like George Wallace, Pat Robertson in the 1988 GOP contest, Ross Perot, and Pat Buchanan. There's a segment of society that will rebel against 'politics as usual' all while ignoring the lack of substantive proposals from the populist demagogue. It's right when they propose something specific or make a public decision that they implode. (Although I was not alive, the implosion of the Wallace campaign in 1968 is traced in the polls to the moment he picked Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay as his running mate and destroyed much of his internal support and freaked out people with LeMay talking Barry Goldwater-like about nuclear annihilation).
Plus - watching left-wing media who actually believes themselves to be objective freak out has been kind of fun. But it also proves what I've long known - all my life I've watched how some Democrats (not all) feel the snobbish need to advise the Republicans on who their nominee 'should be' (you don't hear this from the GOP - their folks will actually come out and say things like 'we hope to run against Jesse Jackson/Howard Dean,' but they don't say 'the Democrats should nominate candidate X' as happens in reverse). And they ALWAYS basically say the GOP needs to nominate someone of 'more inclusive' views - by which they mean (mostly) someone who supports abortion/abortion rights (pick whichever word you like) and is basically a social liberal.
Now the GOP front-runner is literally someone these same Democrats ought to be saying, "Wow, look at the Republicans nominating such a social liberal like Trump" - and they're playing the same old 'they're a bunch of bigots' card that's been out there at least since Barry Goldwater (who was no racist of any kind). Building a wall is a ridiculous idea that has no chance of ever happening but the mere fact you support building a wall does not equate to being a racist, either. I'll guarantee you Trump's business life in regards to whom he has hired - he has directly provided more jobs to blacks, women, and Hispanics than both Clintons combined. (To say nothing of having executed fewer lobotomized black men than Bill Clinton did when he was governor).
I don't see Trump winning, but I agree with jthomas here - Trump has more of a chance than he would under NORMAL circumstances because the front-runner for the Democrats quite frankly is perhaps the most polarizing figure in the American electorate and is also not that good of a candidate (she's run one seriously contested race and she lost).
But I don't see it happening. (I reiterate - I do not have a candidate in the field. I don't like any of them although the one thing I WILL give Bernie Sanders, who is about as opposite my views as one can get - he's an honest socialist about actually being one).
I figure the election will be between Hillary and the winner of the Cruz-Rubio sweepstakes. But Bernie is going to win some early, too.